The method and the setting are one description
The Libra half of your Mercury runs the 7th house, so the way you think and the place you think it turn out to be the same description. The sign already reasons by weighing two sides and the house is already about the person opposite.
There is no independent version of your thinking to fall back on. What that means practically is that solitude does not make you more objective here; it simply leaves the proceedings without a second party.
Fairness is the actual working method
You do not merely try to be fair, you use fairness as the instrument: the answer you arrive at is the one you could justify to everybody affected, including whoever loses. That produces settlements people accept rather than merely comply with, which is rare and genuinely valuable. Keep it for arrangements between people, where it belongs, and use plain self-interest with institutions, which are not offering you the same.
The verdict cannot be extracted from you
Asked what you want, you produce the balanced summary, and the person opposite ends up guessing. Some of them will guess wrong for years. Force the closing sentence: after the sides have been laid out, say weighing all of that, I choose this. It is the one sentence that both halves of this position conspire to prevent, and everything else improves the moment it exists.
You become whoever you are opposite
Your positions, tastes and even your energy adjust to the person in front of you, quickly and without any decision being made. It makes you excellent company and it means two people who both know you well can describe entirely different individuals. Keep one thing constant across all of them — a view, a habit, a refusal — so there is something to triangulate from.
With nobody there, the proceedings stall
Alone, decisions genuinely do not resolve for you; the hearing continues and no verdict is ever handed down. That is why you consult so widely and why the consulting sometimes replaces the deciding. Write your own position down before you ask anybody, in one sentence. It gives the later conversation something to test rather than something to supply.
You are somebody different with each of them
Your friends would give incompatible accounts of you, and none of them would be wrong, because you genuinely become a slightly different person in each pairing. It is a form of attentiveness rather than deceit. Bring two of them together once and tolerate the awkwardness of having to be one version. That discomfort is informative and it happens to almost nobody else.
Charge for the agreement, not the hours
What you sell is a settlement both sides will actually honour: the negotiation concluded, the disputing teams working again, the client kept. That outcome is worth a great deal and it takes an unpredictable number of hours. Price the result rather than the time, because hourly billing systematically undercharges the meeting in which you said the one sentence that fixed it.
Deciding without a second opinion
The practice here is not becoming more decisive in general but tolerating the specific discomfort of a choice made alone. Every mechanism you have runs on a second party, so the skill has to be built deliberately. Make one real decision a month with nobody consulted, and record the outcome. After a year the evidence, rather than any argument, will settle how much you trust yourself.
Deferring has a physical price
Every time you take the less convenient half of an arrangement, the arithmetic gets logged somewhere your manner refuses to acknowledge, and it surfaces as tiredness with no identifiable cause rather than as resentment. Track what you conceded across a whole week rather than examining any single instance. The pattern is obvious in aggregate and completely invisible one decision at a time, which is exactly why it has run this long.